Phil Woolas: Our local Government White Paper, "Strong and Prosperous Communities", made clear that the status quo in two-tier areas is not an option. Accordingly, in parallel with the White Paper's publication in October 2006 we invited councils in two-tier areas to submit by 25 January 2007 proposals for unitary status. We also invited bids from councils to pioneer as pathfinders new two-tier models.
	We have now received 26 bids for unitary status and five pathfinder bids. These are:
	
		
			 Unitary Bids 
			 Councils Submitting Proposals Proposed Unitary Structure 
			 1. Bedford Borough Council Bedford unitary 
			 2. Bedfordshire County Council County unitary 
			 3. Cheshire County Council County unitary 
			 4. Chester City Council 2 unitary option for Cheshire 
			 5. Cornwall County Council County unitary 
			 6. Cornwall Districts County unitary 
			 7. Cumbria County Council County unitary 
			 8. Durham County Council County unitary 
			 9. Durham Districts Future unitary status for county area 
			 10. East Riding District (an existing unitary) East Riding and Selby 
			 11. Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council 3 unitary option for Cheshire 
			 12. Exeter City Council Exeter unitary 
			 13. Ipswich Borough Council Ipswich unitary 
			 14. Lancaster City Council Lancaster unitary 
			 15. Mid-Bedfordshire District Council and South Bedfordshire District Council Unitary covering both districts 
			 16. North Yorkshire County Council County unitary 
			 17. Northumberland County Council County unitary 
			 18. Northumberland Districts Councils 2 unitary option for Northumberland 
			 19. Norwich City Council Norwich unitary 
			 20. Oxford City Council 3 unitary option for Oxfordshire 
			 21. Pendle Borough Council and Burnley Borough Council Burnley and Pendle unitary 
			 22. Preston City Council Preston unitary 
			 23. Shropshire County Council County unitary 
			 24. Somerset County Council County unitary 
			 25. South Somerset District Council East Somerset unitary 
			 26. Wiltshire County Council County unitary 
			   
			 Pathfinder Proposals 
			 1. Buckinghamshire  
			 2. Dorset  
			 3. Hertfordshire  
			 4. Lincolnshire  
			 5. Suffolk  
		
	
	All bids will now be carefully considered.
	Unitary proposals will be assessed against the criteria specified in the invitation to decide which proposals will go forward for stakeholder consultation. We intend to announce our decisions in March, and launch the consultation at the end of March with a 12-week consultation period.
	The criteria are that any change to future unitary structures must be affordable, and be supported by a broad cross section of partners and stakeholders; and that the future structures must provide strong, effective and accountable leadership, deliver genuine opportunities for neighbourhood flexibility and empowerment, and deliver value for money and equity on public services.
	Following the stakeholder consultation on proposals the Government will reassess those proposals and intend to announce by the end of July 2007 which proposals will proceed to implementation.
	We will also assess the pathfinder bids, and intend to announce after the March announcement on unitary proposals which pathfinders we will be working with as they develop their innovative two-tier models.
	The period for submitting bids has now ended, and we have no plans to issue any further invitations. Councils everywhere need to ensure their focus remains on delivering improved outcomes for their communities by working effectively with all partners and stakeholders.
	In those areas for which there are one or more unitary proposals all councils should now avoid any action that might prejudice the future, whatever the outcome of the bid. In all other areas, where it is already clear that the two-tier structure will continue, we expect councils to pursue improved ways of working together, delivering for their communities that strong local leadership, increased efficiency, better value for money, and reduced council tax potentially offered by unitary options.

Harriet Harman: I am announcing today my intention to strengthen the public protection role of coroners in England and Wales. In the draft Coroners Bill, published last June, there was provision for coroners to make reports to organisations that had the power to take action to prevent future deaths. Arising from the consultation process, on the draft Bill, I have strengthened this proposal. I plan to ensure that organisations are required to respond to such reports; provide that the chief coroner, who will be appointed under the Bill, will monitor the reports made and the responses received; and require that the chief coroner provide a summary in his or her annual report to the Lord Chancellor, who will lay the report before this House.
	Families often express their wish that something positive might come out of a coroner's inquiry and hope that relevant agencies will take preventative action so that the death of their family member is not in vain. The increased focus on the ability to learn lessons, and to share information and best practice, will help families to achieve closure, as well as prevent future deaths, and address public interest issues about health and safety.
	These new powers will also build on the steps that coroners are already taking, in advance of legislation, to improve the public protection aspect of their role and will assist organisations to identify and remedy problems.

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be representing the UK at this month's Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels.
	This being the first Council of the German presidency, the first item on the agenda will be the presentation of the presidency work programme by the new Chairman of the Council. This presentation will lay out the agriculture and fisheries objectives of the German presidency.
	The Agriculture Commissioner will present a proposal on fruit and vegetables, laying down specific rules and amending certain regulations dealing with the sector. The Council will hold an exchange of views and the United Kingdom will intervene briefly in support of market-based and budget-neutral reforms which extend the common agricultural policy reform process and ensure a sustainable future for the sector.
	The Commissioner will then present two proposals on the common organisation of the market in cereals, including the large increase in intervention purchasing of maize: one proposal will deliver extra short-term cash to compensate for high interest charges; the other will seek to overcome the problem by allowing the market to operate freely and abolish the intervention for maize. Following the presentation, the Council will hold an exchange of views on the latter proposal.
	There will be a Ministers only lunch at which the presidency work programme will be discussed. The Council will then return to the agenda following lunch to discuss WTO agricultural negotiations, at the request of France.
	There will then be a recorded policy debate on a proposal banning the placing on the market or the import into or export from the community of cat and dog fur. The United Kingdom will not intervene on this issue as its position has already been expressed in other fora.
	A number of issues, as follows, will be raised under "Any Other Business": none of which require any intervention by the United Kingdom.
	There will be an update on the developments on avian influenza H5N1 by the Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner and an update on the EC-Russian Federation veterinary agreement negotiations by the Commissioner and the presidency.
	Austria will request that the thematic strategy for soil protection be discussed in agricultural as well as environmental fora in Brussels. The United Kingdom will signal its support for that approach.
	Denmark will request a Council discussion on the implementation of cross-compliance.
	A number of Mediterranean states will ask for discussion of the serious consequences of drought on the agricultural sector in the Mediterranean area.
	The Czech Republic will request a discussion of the effects on forestry of last week's storms across the EU.
	Latvia will request information on the implementation of the simplified energy crops scheme in the new member states.

Joan Ryan: The informal Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held in Dresden on the 15-16 January 2007. Baroness Ashton and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. I thought it would be useful if I were to outline the main issues that were discussed at the Council. Since it was an informal Council, no formal decisions were taken.
	The German presidency opened the Council by outlining briefly their JHA programme plans for the duration of their tenure.
	The presidency then invited discussion on the possible incorporation of the Prum treaty into EU law. The treaty, signed by seven member states on 27 May 2005, is designed to intensify cross-border police co-operation, especially in the fight against terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal immigration. It offers a model for information exchange in three areas: DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration. The presidency has made it clear that it attaches significant importance to the incorporation of Prum and sought views at the informal on such incorporation and whether it should be in whole or limited to parts only of the treaty.
	There was general consensus among member states that work should be taken forward on incorporating the third pillar elements of the Prum treaty (essentially the information-sharing parts) into EU law. The UK made clear that it supported practical co-operation in the areas of law enforcement and that it saw considerable value in transposing the third pillar elements into EU law, subject to further consideration of whether this should be on an exact one-to-one basis. The UK stressed that whatever mechanism was agreed for incorporation, sufficient time needed to be allowed for national Parliaments to scrutinise arrangements. It would be important, too, to consider fully the cost implications. The presidency noted that there was broad consensus to take work forward and that, in the light of the discussion, it would bring forward a proposal in advance of the February formal Council.
	The presidency then invited views on ideas for developing the post-2009 home affairs JHA programme and suggested that the next multi-annual work programme should be prepared by an informal group made up of the six member states holding the presidency between 2007-09, together with the Commission and the European Parliament. In addition, such an advisory group could be assisted by specific experts designated ad personam. Other member states would be able to submit input to the group at all stages and the presidency highlighted the value it attached to the views of all in the process. The views of the advisory group would be fed into the formal discussions that would take place among all member states within the Council.
	In discussion, member states were generally positive, in principle, subject to the need for full transparency and openness with other member states throughout the process. The Commission and the UK both noted that work on the post-2009 programme should not detract from the ongoing work that the EU to do in implementing the existing Hague programme and the need for any such group to reflect the different legal models (such as the common law) which existed in member states. The presidency concluded that they would consider the way ahead with the Commission, and return to the issues at the February JHA Council.
	In the discussion on migration, the presidency sought discussion on how best to react to the current migratory challenges facing the EU, building on the joint paper submitted by the G6 member states following their meeting in Stratford-upon-Avon in October 2006 and the European Council conclusions of December 2006. In particular, they highlighted the need to focus on closer co-operation with regard to return measures and border protection; the strengthening of Frontex (the Borders Agency); improved information sharing; and the more extensive use of biometrics. In addition, they sought views on further work in relation to readmission agreements; bilateral partnerships between EU member states and third countries; circular migration; and the promotion of information sharing between asylum authorities.
	All member states supported the implementation of the December 2006 European Council conclusions and the global approach to migration. A number called for more resources to be given to Frontex.
	Under the item on e-justice, the presidency introduced their pilot project on the exchange of criminal records. They noted that a key question was whether any centralised system or network was needed, or whether it might be better simply to join up existing member state databases. The UK said that it favoured the use of existing systems, as did a significant number of other member states. I pressed other member states to look hard at their procedures for sharing conviction data at the moment, and at including fingerprints, while recognising that the UK was far from perfect itself. I also indicated that the UK strongly supported the development of e-justice, especially in the "Order for Payment" and was looking positively at joining the presidency pilot project on the exchange of criminal records. The presidency concluded that there was clear support for further work in this area and that they would consider the setting up of a working group to take this forward.
	On violent video games, the presidency showed a violent video game recently banned in Germany. The Commission undertook to come forward with a communication setting out ideas, such as a forum for producers and governments. The presidency suggested looking at better European coordination of restrictions, better information exchange on banned games and a discussion of the procedures for classifying and banning games.
	On "Family Law" the presidency argued for applicable law rules for divorce and inheritance. The UK, supported by five other member states, maintained its position that applicable law rules would bring significant problems of applying foreign law rules in EU courts and pressed for mutual recognition, better-focused legislation and more use of non-legislative measures.

Peter Hain: I have received the 13th Report of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC). This report has been made under articles 4 and 1 of the international agreement that established the Commission and it reports on levels of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. I have considered the content of the report and I am today bringing it before Parliament. I have placed copies in the Library of the House.
	With regard to PIRA, the IMC have identified a significant number of developments in the three months under review since their last report; all these developments have been positive and have provided further confirmation of their view that the leadership is folly committed to a political path and the successful implementation of that strategy.
	As the IMC notes, the decision taken by the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis on 28 January to support policing and criminal justice was "a very major development" and achieved through the commitment and efforts of the Sinn Fein leadership. While they note that opposing opinions were expressed during the course of the Ard Fheis, they praise the fact that such differences were expressed by political means and democratic debate. They conclude that "the efforts invested by the leadership of the republican movement in presenting the arguments in favour of the change were further substantial evidence of their commitment to the democratic process".
	In terms of terrorist activities, the IMC have noted a "continued deterioration of terrorist capability". They have also noted that members who had previously shown interest in acquiring small arms "appear not to have followed their inclination through", in order to obey the instructions of the leadership. They have further noted that PIRA has not been responsible for any shootings or assaults and has not conducted intelligence gathering for any unlawful purposes; neither has it engaged in any sectarian violence, intimidation nor other forms of crime. In all the above areas, the IMC state that "The directions from the PIRA leadership to members have remained clear and consistent. Terrorism and violence have been abandoned".
	On Loyalism, the IMC concludes that individuals have continued to show leadership in attempting to "guide the respective organisations away from criminality and towards both involvement in community development and democratic politics". However, they characterise progress across the loyalist organisations as "patchy" and urge that all should work to quicken the pace of change.
	The Government believe that this report removes the final, major impediment to the restoration of stable and lasting devolution in Northern Ireland. It is now for the politicians to grasp the historic opportunity which lies before them in the coming weeks.
	Once again, I am grateful to the Commission for their submission of this report and for its careful analysis.